Are we Heading towards a Constitutional Crisis

Page 3 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

27 Feb 2011, 8:05 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha, any thoughts on Bush's signing statements? You are conspicuously ignoring that post.

I'm ignoring it because you haven't exactly been specific.

BS, you're ignoring it because you have no response. There were over 1100 laws that Bush signed and yet stated he would refuse to enforce. The American Bar Association condemned that. Why is it OK when Bush refuses to enforce laws that he himself signed but not OK when Obama declines to fight to preserve someone else's law in court?

Then you should have no problem giving me an example.

how about 161 examples?
***Click to reach List***

Oh and there is this list to, Obama continued the practice
I see this as a sign that Bush erroded the balance of powers in a continuing way.
not as an example of turn about is fair play.
***Click for Obamas List***

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Last edited by JakobVirgil on 27 Feb 2011, 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Feb 2011, 8:10 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Considering they're the ones who ruined the balance of power to begin with, I'd guess they're not the ones to rely on to restore it.

I'd also bank on the dems not being the answer either.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

27 Feb 2011, 8:15 pm

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Considering they're the ones who ruined the balance of power to begin with, I'd guess they're not the ones to rely on to restore it.

I'd also bank on the dems not being the answer either.

agreed

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Feb 2011, 8:17 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Considering they're the ones who ruined the balance of power to begin with, I'd guess they're not the ones to rely on to restore it.

I'd also bank on the dems not being the answer either.

agreed

Or the Tea Party (which is just Neo-Cons in Libertarian's clothing).

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

27 Feb 2011, 8:49 pm

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Considering they're the ones who ruined the balance of power to begin with, I'd guess they're not the ones to rely on to restore it.

I'd also bank on the dems not being the answer either.

agreed

Or the Tea Party (which is just Neo-Cons in Libertarian's clothing).

It's a total Astro-turf movement. My hope at least is that it will separate moderate Republicans ('normies'

) from the extremists who will support the Tea Party, and then perhaps the Republican Party can win back it's intellectual credibility

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Feb 2011, 9:35 pm

pandabear wrote:

Newt Gingrich is just another vile fat idiot who wants to run for president.

I don't think he is vile. I think he is a Statist, though.

ruveyn

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Feb 2011, 9:42 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha, any thoughts on Bush's signing statements? You are conspicuously ignoring that post.

I'm ignoring it because you haven't exactly been specific.

Then you should have no problem giving me an example.

how about 161 examples?
***Click to reach List***

Today I have signed into law S.J. Res. 6,
a measure that repeals an unduly burdensome
and overly broad regulation dealing
with ergonomics. This is the first time the
Congressional Review Act has been put to
use. This resolution is a good and proper use
of the Act because the different branches of
our Government need to be held accountable.
There needs to be a balance between and
an understanding of the costs and benefits
associated with Federal regulations. In this
instance, though, in exchange for uncertain
benefits, the ergonomics rule would have
cost both large and small employers billions
of dollars and presented employers with
overwhelming compliance challenges. Also,
the rule would have applied a bureaucratic
one-size-fits-all solution to a broad range of
employers and workers—not good government
at work.
The safety and health of our Nation’s
workforce is a priority for my Administration.
Together we will pursue a comprehensive
approach to ergonomics that addresses the
concerns surrounding the ergonomics rule
repealed today. We will work with the
Congress, the business community, and our
Nation’s workers to address this important
issue.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/Statements/SSsjr6.pdf

Uh where is it saying he's ignoring the law?

I'm not going to waste my time going through all of them, I said find me examples, not give me a link and tell me to find your examples for you.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

28 Feb 2011, 1:41 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Then why is he still trying to impliment Obamacare even after a Judge has ruled it Unconstitutional?

He's picking and choosing which laws to follow.

Well, first of all, let's dispose of your substantive argument. Judge of different circuits have ruled the legislation constitutional and unconstitutional and all (as far as I am aware) are subject to appeal, and stayed. Since none of these judgements are of any force and effect while they are sub iudice the Administration is free to continue to follow its implementation plan.

But more importantly, you are comparing apples and oranges. I am speaking of the constitutional authority of the administration to give instructions to its lawyers. You are suggesting a constitutional incapacity during the interim between a trial judgement and a final appeal judgement.

This isn't so much, "picking and choosing," as it is the legitimate exercise of the executive branch's authority.

_________________
--James

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Feb 2011, 2:10 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Then why is he still trying to impliment Obamacare even after a Judge has ruled it Unconstitutional?

He's picking and choosing which laws to follow.

They why did Obama ask for an injunction to force States to follow Obamacare even after it was ruled Unconstitutional by the same judge that ruled it unconstitutional.

visagrunt wrote:

But more importantly, you are comparing apples and oranges. I am speaking of the constitutional authority of the administration to give instructions to its lawyers. You are suggesting a constitutional incapacity during the interim between a trial judgement and a final appeal judgement.

This isn't so much, "picking and choosing," as it is the legitimate exercise of the executive branch's authority.

He said he wouldn't bother defending it yet would still enforce it.

Anyways we live under a rule of law, not the rule of Obama.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Feb 2011, 2:38 pm

Vigilans wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Considering they're the ones who ruined the balance of power to begin with, I'd guess they're not the ones to rely on to restore it.

I'd also bank on the dems not being the answer either.

agreed

Or the Tea Party (which is just Neo-Cons in Libertarian's clothing).

It's a total Astro-turf movement. My hope at least is that it will separate moderate Republicans ('normies'

) from the extremists who will support the Tea Party, and then perhaps the Republican Party can win back it's intellectual credibility

So long as the republican party worships Reagan and ignores Teddy Roosevelt and Ike Eisenhower, they won't have any intellectual credibility. Reagan's tenure wasn't built on credibility, it was built on class warfare and an extremely effective PR campaign.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

28 Feb 2011, 3:07 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Considering they're the ones who ruined the balance of power to begin with, I'd guess they're not the ones to rely on to restore it.

I'd also bank on the dems not being the answer either.

agreed

Or the Tea Party (which is just Neo-Cons in Libertarian's clothing).

It's a total Astro-turf movement. My hope at least is that it will separate moderate Republicans ('normies'

) from the extremists who will support the Tea Party, and then perhaps the Republican Party can win back it's intellectual credibility

Yeah. I have even read that his links with the military ensured that the hostages held in Iran would not be released during Carter's presidency to ensure dissatisfaction with Carter's foreign policy. I don't care that much about Carter but that is fairly underhanded (and unsurprising to me). It is rather too convenient that the hostages were released immediately after Reagan finished his inaugural address

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Feb 2011, 3:16 pm

Vigilans wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

I feel we need to return the power to congress.
but I don't think the reps are the answer.

-Jake

Considering they're the ones who ruined the balance of power to begin with, I'd guess they're not the ones to rely on to restore it.

I'd also bank on the dems not being the answer either.

agreed

Or the Tea Party (which is just Neo-Cons in Libertarian's clothing).

It's a total Astro-turf movement. My hope at least is that it will separate moderate Republicans ('normies'

) from the extremists who will support the Tea Party, and then perhaps the Republican Party can win back it's intellectual credibility

That's because they were held until after. The deal was done under Carter but Reagan got the cred because they got back here after he was in office.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Feb 2011, 4:51 pm

Uh here is where you two are wrong:

1. The Iranian Government was partially trying to spite Carter.

2. Carter was more prone to whine than to actually stand up and do something.

I would argue that the Iranian Government didn't want an actual military confrontation, and believe me Reagan would have acted militarily to get those hostages out.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

28 Feb 2011, 5:01 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

They why did Obama ask for an injunction to force States to follow Obamacare even after it was ruled Unconstitutional by the same judge that ruled it unconstitutional.

Surely it is the privilege of any litigant to seek an order from the Court to enforce the status quo ante during the interval between the Court's pronouncing judgement and the matter falling to the higher court. This is not an unusual application from my point of view.

Quote:

He said he wouldn't bother defending it yet would still enforce it.

Anyways we live under a rule of law, not the rule of Obama.

This appears to me to be a clear expression of the rule of law. The Administration has no choice but to, for example, deny a privilege avaialble to married couples to a married couple of the same sex. A person cannot, for example, be admitted as an H4 or a TD category non-immigrant with a same-sex spouse H1B or TN-1 principal applicant. Until the Court makes a final judgement as to the constitutionality of the legislation, it remains the law.

However, nothing requires the Administration to instruct its lawyers in any particular fashion. So the instruction not to offer a defence to the constitutionality of the legislation is entirely consistent with the Adminstrations obligation to obey the statute until such time as it is invalidated.

_________________
--James

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

28 Feb 2011, 5:06 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Doesn't matter what your opinion is, you can't possibly know the truth any more then we can

Starting all your posts with 'Uh' is getting kind of tiresome. I suggest instead you end all of your posts with 'uffda' instead as this would actually amuse me

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Feb 2011, 5:12 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

They why did Obama ask for an injunction to force States to follow Obamacare even after it was ruled Unconstitutional by the same judge that ruled it unconstitutional.

I would argue it is because Obamacare is his pet project while not defending the Defense of Marriage Act caters to a political constituency.

visagrunt wrote:

Quote:

He said he wouldn't bother defending it yet would still enforce it.

Anyways we live under a rule of law, not the rule of Obama.

So how is defying two court orders concerning the drilling ban following the rule of law? How is trying to force states to follow a law that was declared unconstitutional and trying to stall on Obamacare ending up in the Supreme Court following the rule of law.

visagrunt wrote:

However, nothing requires the Administration to instruct its lawyers in any particular fashion. So the instruction not to offer a defence to the constitutionality of the legislation is entirely consistent with the Adminstrations obligation to obey the statute until such time as it is invalidated.

Sure ordering the dismissal of a voter intimidation case after the conviction following the rule of law.

Page 3 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Are we Heading towards a Constitutional Crisis Post Reply New Topic

Are we Heading towards a Constitutional Crisis